Quite recently an application was made on behalf of the Secretary for War, at Lambeth County Court, for an ejectment order against James Leach, an ex-soldier, from rooms occupied by him and his family in married men’s quarters.
The following interesting conversation took place in Court :—
Judge Parry asked “Can the court eject a man from barracks?”
Mr. C. Davies (for the application) : “It has always been done.”
Judge Parry : “Are the authorities not capable of turning this man out?”
Mr. C. Davie : “The Secretary for War does not want to use Prussian methods.”
Judge Parry : “He brings to this Court a nasty job which he can do himself.”
Judge Parry made an order by consent for possession in a month, and gave judgement for £6 18s. rent, with costs.—Daily Mail, April 26th, 1922.
What a piece of hypocrisy ! A puzzle !
What is the difference between the “Prussian” methods of ejectment by the Secretary for War and the ejectment order of Judge Parry?
Any reader correctly answering same will be asked to contribute to the £1,000 Fund.
* * *
The first week in September a postal strike was declared in Ireland against a proposed reduction in wages.
The Irish Government showed themselves to be the same as all other capitalist governments when their interests are threatened.
The following was culled from the Evening News, September 11th, 1922 :—
” Free State troops to-day dispersed strike pickets outside postal offices in Dublin by firing over their heads. This is in accordance with the Government’s announcement that the postal strike, which began at 6 yesterday evening, is illegal and that picketing will be suppressed. The strike is against a proposed ‘cut ‘ in wages.”
The workers in Ireland have the same lesson to learn as the workers of all countries, i.e. : That not until they recognise there is a class-struggle in Society born of the private ownership of the means of life, and that Socialism is their hope, can there be any improvement in their wretched conditions.
* * *
“Our bitter experience has proved that it is not Germany that is paying. It is the British working man who is paying at this moment. “
This statement, made by ]. H. Thomas, M.P., was loudly cheered at the Trade Union Congress at Southport to-day.—Evening News, September 5th, 1922.
How often have readers of the S.S. heard the above statement made from the platforms of the pseudo-socialist parties and met it in their press? By a mere superficial examination of the above, it undoubtedly appears to be correct. But when a thinking worker analyses the assertion, he will quite easily see how unsound J.H.T.’s economics really are. Doubtless, Thomas, like many thousands of workers, think that because the workers are the wealth producers of the world, they must of necessity pay for everything. That only shows “loose” thinking, a failure to understand correctly capitalist wealth production.
* * *
One statement in the election address of the “revolutionary” Mayor of Bethnal Green during the last L.C.C. election was as follows :—
“We maintain that unemployment is a NATIONAL, and not a local problem, and if returned to the L.C.C. will do all in our power to force the Government to provide work or accept financial responsibility for unemployment. Further, we pledge ourselves to do all in our power to push forward the L.C.C.’s own schemes of. work so as to absorb the unemployed. If you want the opportunity to work : Vote for Valentine and Vaughan.”
Could anyone but a place-hunter spread broadcast such rubbish and still claim to be a Socialist? Sorry, Mr. Printer, he’s a Communist ! Every line in the above statement is sheer bunkum. Quite apart from the fact that unemployment is not a national problem, even if Vaughan and his clique were in the majority on the L.C.C. it would not be possible for them to provide schemes to absorb the unemployed.
Not all the schemes, plans and efforts of all the reformers can remove the canker, of unemployment and its concomitant evils; not until the workers are fully conscious of the fact that the private property basis of society must be swept aside, to make way for the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living.
(Socialist Standard, October 1922)